MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TRANSFER TO DISTRICT OF NEVADA AND
DENYING IN PART THE COURT'S DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT MGM
FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

THIS
MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to
Transfer to Cure Want of Jurisdiction, and Rule 60 Motion to
Correct an Omission or for Other Reasons that Justify Relief,
filed on December 8, 2017 (Doc. 69). Having
reviewed the parties' briefs and applicable law, the
Court finds that Plaintiff's request to transfer the case
to the District of Nevada is well-taken, but on grounds other
than Rule 60, but finds that the motion is denied in that
Defendant MGM will remain as dismissed from this case for the
present time.

BACKGROUND

This
case arises from a denial of insurance benefits for Mr.
Hernandez in connection with a medical helicopter ride from a
hospital in El Paso, Texas to Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiff
Med Flight Air Ambulance, Inc. (“Med Flight”) is
a New Mexico corporation with its principal business location
located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. MGM is a Delaware
corporation with its principal business location in Las
Vegas, Nevada. MGM employed Adrian Hernandez and provides a
self-insured health insurance plan to its employees, entitled
the “MGM Resorts Health and Welfare Benefit Plan”
(“MGM Plan”). MGM is the Plan Administrator of
the MGM Plan, and Mr. Hernandez was a participant and
beneficiary of the MGM Plan. Defendant UMR, Inc.
(“UMR”) is a Delaware corporation that is
registered and licensed to do business in the state of New
Mexico. UMR is the Claims Administrator, along with MGM, of
the MGM Plan. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff Med Flight claims
that Defendants (including MGM) owed Mr. Hernandez as Plan
participant-and therefore Plaintiff via assignment-purported
benefits in the form of payment of the usual and customary
charges for the emergency air transport of Mr. Hernandez.

In
December, 2014, Mr. Hernandez was initially treated on an
emergency basis at Del Sol Medical Center in El Paso, Texas.
The medical staff at that facility determined that the nature
of his medical needs could not be adequately met by their
facility, and arrangements were made with Plaintiff Med
Flight to transport him to Valley Hospital Center in Las
Vegas, Nevada, where he lived, and where his own doctors, who
were familiar with his on-going medical issues, could treat
him. He was medically transported, via airplane, to the
facility in Las Vegas by Plaintiff Med Flight.

On
January 12, 2017, Med Flight filed a complaint in the Second
Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, asserting
breach of contract and unfair trade practices. Defendants
removed the case to federal court on February 17, 2017 based
on federal question jurisdiction under the federal ERISA
statute (29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B) and §1132(g)(1)
as well as diversity jurisdiction. The Amended Complaint has
three counts asserted under ERISA. Count I alleges a breach
of agreement between Defendants and Med Flight under 29
U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B); Count II asserts requested relief
in the form of attorney fees and costs under
§1132(g)(1); and Count III seeks relief under
§1132(c) which provides for other civil enforcement
penalties for violation of the statute.

On
November 22, 2017, this Court granted MGM's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under
Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(2), finding that Defendant MGM successfully
demonstrated that litigation in New Mexico was unduly
inconvenient and that any federal interest in litigating the
dispute here in this state outweighed the burden imposed on
MGM in having to defend the case here.[1] Doc. 67 (Mem.
Opin. & Order). Currently, the Court's ruling on
MGM's motion to dismiss still leaves Plaintiff's
claims pending against UMR in this forum.

DISCUSSION

In this
motion, Plaintiff moves for an order modifying the
Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order to order transfer of
this entire dispute to Nevada, rather than dismissing MGM
from the lawsuit. Plaintiff did not suggest transfer as an
option in response to MGM's motion at the time of the
briefing on the motion to dismiss, but now seeks to pursue
this lawsuit in Nevada, MGM's home state of operations,
rather than incurring the expense of an appeal of this
Court's jurisdictional decision. Plaintiff seeks relief
under both Fed.R.Civ.P.60 and 28 U.S.C. §1631.

I.
Rule 60 Plaintiff contends that Rule 60 is the
appropriate procedural mechanism for relief because the Court
has already issued an Order dismissing MGM, relying on either
Rule 60(a) or (b)(6).

A.
Rule 60(a)

Under
Rule 60(a), a court “may correct a clerical mistake or
a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is
found in a judgment or order or other part of the
record.” Med Flight's request for transfer is not
simply a ministerial correction of an error and does not
qualify for relief under Rule 60(a). See Matter of West
Texas Mktg. Corp.,12 F.3d 497, 504-05 (5th Cir. 1994)
(“It is only mindless and mechanistic mistakes, minor
shifting of facts, and no new additional legal perambulations
which are reachable through Rule 60(a)”). The
“touchstone” of Rule 60(a) is “fidelity to
the intent behind the original judgment.”
Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven, 745 F.3d 1294, 1298
(9th Cir. 2014). Here, the Court's Order dismissing
Defendant MGM for lack of personal jurisdiction cannot be
interpreted or clarified to mean that the case would then
need to be transferred to Nevada. MGM would have to be
“un-dismissed, ” reinserted as a party in this
lawsuit and transfer would then have to be considered on its
own separate merits. Plaintiff's request is denied under
Rule 60(a). See, e.g., New CSI, Inc. v. Staffing 360
Sols., Inc., 865 F.3d 251, 263 (5th Cir. 2017) (Rule
60(a) motion denied where it urged the district court to
change its substantive interpretation of the stock purchase
agreement rather than drawing the court's attention to a
true clerical error); Shuffle Tech Int'l, LLC v.
Wolff Gaming, Inc., 757 F.3d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 2014)
(Where court rescinded contract, plaintiff could not rely on
an interpretation of the judgment that would have relieved it
of any duty to refund the earnest money and thus, court's
correction of judgment “made explicit what the parties
must have assumed - that with the draft agreement rescinded
the earnest money had to be returned).

B.
Rule 60(b)(6)

Plaintiff
also contends that Rule 60(b)(6) provides a mechanism for
modification of the Court's Order. Rule 60(b)(6) allows
relief from a judgment or order for “any other reason
that justified relief.” Med Flight points out that it
will be forced to refile a new case in Nevada if the Court
denies its transfer request, and its claim will be lost if
MGM is successful in arguing the application of the one-year
limitations period pursuant to the health care plan
agreement. Plaintiff also notes that the dismissal of MGM
puts it in the “untenable and costly position of having
to litigate this case in two forums in two different
states.” Doc. 69 at 6.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rule
60(b)(6) is considered the &ldquo;catch-all&rdquo; ground for
relief under Rule 60(b). However, the Tenth Circuit has
consistently ruled that &ldquo;Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary
procedure permitting the court that entered judgment to grant
relief therefrom upon a showing of good cause within the
rule. It is not a substitute for appeal, and must be
considered with the need for finality of judgment.&rdquo;
Cessna Fin. Corp. v. Bielenberg Masonry contracting,
Inc.,715 F.2d 1442, 1444 (10th Cir. 1983); Galbert
v. W. Caribbean Airways, 715 F.3d 1290, 1294 (11th Cir.
2013) (Rule 60(b)(6) movant must show that &ldquo;absent such
relief, an &lsquo;extreme&#39; and &lsquo;unexpected&#39;
hardship will result, &rdquo; (quoting United States v.
Swift & Co.,286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932)); see also
Van Skiver v. U.S., 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991)
(noting that relief under Rule 60(b) is discretionary and is
warranted only in exceptional circumstances, and affirming
denial of motion construed as motion seeking relief from
judgment). Rule 60 is considered a &ldquo;grand reservoir of
equitable power to do justice in a particular case&rdquo; and
in order to get relief under this this rule, the situation
must be one beyond the control of the party requesting
relief. Federated Towing & Recovery, LLC v.
Praetorian Ins. Co., 283 F.R.D. 644, 653 (D.N.M. 2012)
(citing Van Skiver v. United States,952 F.2d 1241,
1244 (10th Cir.1991). Even legal error that provides a basis
for relief must be extraordinary. 952 F.2d at 1244. None of
these situations exist here. Plaintiff seeks relief here not
because of unexpected circumstances, or because circumstances
were beyond its control. Plaintiff chose to file suit here in
New Mexico instead of Nevada but never thought to suggest
that the Court transfer this case to Nevada in the event it
lost on the motion to dismiss. Cmp. Federated Towing
& Recovery, LLC v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 283 F.R.D.
644, 653 (D.N.M. 2012) (citing example of
&ldquo;extraordinary circumstances&rdquo; where there had
been a post-judgment change in the law arising out of the
same accident as that in which plaintiffs had been injured)
(referring to Pierce v. Cook & Co., 518 F.2d
720, 722 (10th Cir.1975) (en banc). Med Flight is requesting
relief which it might have pursued before, ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.